3.8 Article

Integrating public service motivation and self-determination theory A framework

期刊

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/IJPSM-10-2015-0176

关键词

Human resources management; Public sector management; Public service motivation; Self-determination theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a framework integrating theoretical insights, empirical research and practical advice emerging from public service motivation (PSM) and self-determination theory (SDT). It aims at demonstrating that, while PSM shows the relevance of public values for motivation, SDT explains how context affects it. Taking the two theoretical approaches as complementary to one another and by pointing out their static and dynamic features, the framework provides a theoretical foundation for organizational practices aimed at enhancing motivation in the public services. Design/methodology/approach - The framework is based on a review of PSM and SDT theoretical concepts and empirical studies; the analysis examines the implications and contributions of each approach to the understanding of motivation in the public services. Findings - The paper demonstrates that PSM and SDT are complementary theoretical approaches and that this complementarity can provide clearer guidance to practitioners and widen the understanding of motivation in the public services. Research limitations/implications -The framework considers only a few features pertaining motivation in the public services, such as public values, basic needs satisfaction, prosocial behaviour and socialization. Further research should explore additional factors. Practical implications - The framework provides an explanation of why some practices are likely to enhance motivation in the public services, while others are likely to deplete it. Originality/value - The framework does not limit itself to proposing the theoretical integration of PSM and SDT, but connects this integration to organizational practices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据